Only 46.5% of 1409 queried surgery and anesthesiology journals recommended some form of adverse event reporting in their author guidelines.
Observational (n=1,409)
Less than half of surgery and anesthesiology journals recommend or require perioperative adverse event reporting, highlighting a need for standardized reporting guidelines to improve surgical safety.
BACKGROUND: Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality.
Sholklapper et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in Surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting in academic journals (n=1,409). Adverse event reporting guidelines was evaluated on Proportion of journals recommending surgical adverse event reporting. Only 46.5% of 1409 queried surgery and anesthesiology journals recommended some form of adverse event reporting in their author guidelines.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: